The Print Collection
Show Hide image

The great earth-mover: just how capable was Capability Brown?

It's time we re-examined the legacy of England's greatest gardener.

This year, somewhat overshadowed by the quatercentenary of Shakespeare’s death, marks the tercentenary of the birth of the landscape designer Lancelot Brown, whose supposedly naturalistic confections around more than 130 country houses earned him the popular tag of ­“Capability”. The conjunction with Shakespeare has pleased Brown’s supporters, who believe he should be similarly regarded as one of the “curators of English identity”. “He stands behind our vision, and fantasy,” one biographer’s blurb reads, “of rural England.” Fantasy for sure. It’s hard to see what connection the classic Brownian prospect – artificial lake, vast lawns, mansion framed by trees – has to do with the real rural England.

But hyperbolic praise for the great earth-mover is nothing new. In 2011 the Financial Times carried a series of articles that suggested Brown should be “canonised”. The historian Norman Scarfe wrote: “England’s most original contribution to the whole history of art lies in the landscape, and was an affair of creating harmonious pictures with the land itself.” Back in the 18th century Horace Walpole suggested: “Such . . . was the effect of his genius that when he was the happiest man, he will be least remembered; so closely did he copy nature that his works will be mistaken.”

Brown’s champions have always claimed that his supposed ability to imitate nature was his special gift. But the plaudits open up the contradictions at the heart of Brownism. He is praised as a uniquely original artist and a faithful copyist; as a minimalist and a land engineer on the epic scale; even as a rustic Marcel Duchamp, reimagining nature by dragging it into the gallery of the garden.

In the end these aesthetic arguments are a matter of personal taste: anyone is ­entitled to make their garden into an installation. The more serious objection to Brown – or more properly to his cult – is that he is implicated in a powerful but false creation myth,
of the kind the great historical ecologist Oliver Rackham called “pseudo-history”. This origin story posits Brown as Promethean, creating the style that, by a kind of trickle-down, remodelled the entire landscape of lowland England. The claims made on his behalf, when you step back, are of breathtaking hubris: “creating harmonious pictures with the land itself”. Whose harmony? Whose land? The ethos of “landskipping” has had corrosive effects on our understanding of the natural, and of the millennia of landscape-making that preceded Brown, and offers dangerous models for the future.

The roots of Brown’s designs lay not in nature but in the philosophy of “Improvement” that pervaded public affairs in the 18th century. Improvement – in farming, industry, colonial adventure – lay at the heart of Whig philosophy and was an economic project cloaked in moral justifications. In landscape it involved presenting a clear view of a landlord’s benevolence and entrepreneurial spirit together with a physical structure that dramatised the ­social hierarchy of the estate. The so-called “English style” is supposed to have been a reaction against the contrived topiary and symmetrical parterres of French and Italian gardens, which represented the stiff intellectualism of the Continent, and was to be countered by buxom curves and the indigenous “emblem of pure legal liberty”. In truth both were domineering idioms, and the “naturalisation” in Brown’s and others’ designs has always been just spin. Rich men with access to the new technologies of surveying and drainage could now produce their own “nature”. Alexander Pope’s celebrated injunction to “Consult the genius of the place” turns out in his Epistle to Burlington to be the programme for an inquisition, where if the genius loci is found to be supplying short measures of elegance and order, the real genius, the landowner, must step in. His apologists agreed (Brown wrote little about his own work): “the living landscape”, Walpole instructed, must be “chastened or polished”. Nature must be “rescued and improved”, the damage of the Fall repaired.

The overriding aim of English 18th-century landscaping was to demonstrate the standing of the Big House. A crucial device was the ha-ha, a sunken, walled ditch that excluded grazing animals while allowing the working countryside beyond to be seen unobstructed – “taken in” as part of the view. These agricultural acres were in turn being transformed by the forces of Improvement, so that the landowner had, in the same field of view, both his aesthetic playground and his commercial workplace, though reminders of the less pretty realities of farming, such as pigsties and workers’ hovels, were screened off by strategically placed tree belts. On the other side of the ditch, ordinary folk, excluded along with the cows and deer, could see the seat of rural power in plain and unambiguous sight, often on a slight rise in the ground. Humphry Repton, Brown’s successor, spoke approvingly of “that charm which only belongs to ownership, the exclusive right of enjoyment, with the power of refusing that others should share our pleasure”. Inside this overall structure were a series of pick-and-mix motifs – perfect parabolas of gravel, vast acres of lawn, water features where water had no business to be, follies inspired by neoclassical painting – assembled without reference to site or historical context. Cumulatively they built up an entire grammar of exclusion and control.

Brown himself was no high-born elitist. He grew up in Northumberland and served six years of apprenticeship in the gardens of Sir William Loraine at Kirkharle. Although he did develop a personal style, he is best understood as a factor, a man adept at giving physical expression to his patrons’ ambitions. He worked on several commissions at once, sometimes simply modifying earlier layouts by designers such as William Kent and Charles Bridgeman. But despite the legend of harmoniously absorbing the local countryside, his projects were often brutally destructive. At Croome Court in Worcestershire, he drained a huge “morass” in the floodplain of the Avon (today it would be a protected marshland) into an excavated lake via artificial rivers. At Moor Park in Hertfordshire he created clusters of obtrusive hillocks, topped by groves of trees: “a dullish piece of Hertfordshire”, one of the owner’s family remarked, “[transformed] into a very fair imitation of Italy”. The Grecian Valley at Stowe, an estate where Lord Cobham had previously cleared three villages that spoiled his view, was made by moving earth in the opposite direction – 24,000 cubic yards of it, dug out and carted by hand. At Milton in Dorset, Lord Milton had the whole town razed to the ground while Brown was working for him between 1763 and 1770, replacing it with ten miles of dead straight carriage drives and plantations of pines.

Tree planting was a significant ingredient of Brown’s improvements. Trees were territorial markers, visible demonstrations of status, emblems of continuity. They could conjure up a mythic pleasure ground or a valuable investment. Different species had different symbolic values. Oaks and elms were icons of patriotism. Imported evergreens such as cedars of Lebanon and Douglas firs were favoured because they added an aura of Britain’s imperial power and boundless capacity to import new wonders from across the globe. Saplings were used, but many patrons wanted mature trees, to achieve “the Immediate Effect of Wood”. Brown designed a “planting engine” for this purpose, a flat bed mounted on two large iron wheels. I have an engraving of a six-man machine carrying a huge beech tree. It looks like the triumphant parading of a captured gun. Brown’s favourite tree motif was “the clump”, a woodland canapé, suggestive of nature’s mysteries when viewed from the terrace, but purged of any credible suggestion of wildness, such as the undergrowth that forms the natural transition between wood and grass. Uvedale Price, Brown’s most articulate contemporary critic, wrote of it: “the clump – a name, which if the first letter were taken away would most accurately describe its form and effect . . . [they] are like so many puddings turned out of one common mould”.

Planting amenity trees seems so self-evidently a force for good that it is hard for us to understand what a novel practice it was before the 18th century. Why bother when trees appeared so magnanimously of their own accord? We’ve become blinkered to the fact that it’s yet another expression of human power over nature. Trees cannot exist, we believe, unless we thrust them into the ground. That they have perfectly adequate reproductive systems of their own has vanished from popular understanding.

Brown’s gardens can of course be captivating, in a hypnotic way. A couple of years ago at a literary festival at Petworth House, Sussex (Brown, 1753 onwards), I had the rare perk of dining in the great hall, looking out over continents of lawn that seemed to extend unbroken all the way to the Midsummer Eve’s sunset, and with J M W Turner’s watercolours of the burnished scene just behind my chair. I was thoroughly enchanted. But in the colder light of the following morning I realised I might as well have been gazing out over a suburban playing field.

Half a lifetime further back, I lived close to the great wastes of Ashridge and Berkhamsted Commons in the Chilterns, a shape-shifting, storytelling prospect of heath and ancient beechwoods which had been evolving under common usage for more than a thousand years. All that spoiled it were the remnants of Brown’s tinkerings in the 1760s – weird triangular glades, cut into the woods, and tightly mown rides forced through the gorse and beech for no reason other than to reveal the ghastly prospect of Ashridge House. What they said to me – as they said to Brown’s contemporaries such as Uvedale Price, William Cowper and Oliver Goldsmith – was that his designs are meaningless; they are decorative ornaments. Out in the real countryside, landscape emerges as it has always done since at least the Iron Age, by constant negotiation between natural and human ingenuity.

Alas, the heirs of Improvement haven’t wised up to benign natural processes; neither have they developed any respect for millennia of vernacular landscaping. In 1979, in the wake of Dutch elm disease, a group of designers published an influential manifesto called After the Elm. After praising the example set by Brown and his ilk, and the “informal, apparently almost casual . . . English style” created in the 18th century, they set out a Soviet-style plan for a national “grand design” by way of reparation for the
blight. “It is therefore more important than ever,” they wrote, “that the initial plan is prepared by professional landscape designers, and is strong, cohesive and convincing, not a collation of haphazard suggestions by many people” – ignoring that it is unplanned,
communal enterprise that gives the English countryside its variety and character.

The nearest large-scale Brown landscape to my home in East Anglia is at Heveningham Hall in Suffolk, which he began to lay out for Sir Gerald Vanneck in 1783. Driving to it from the west, you pass through the upper Blyth Valley, an intimate pocket of twisting medieval lanes arched over by ancient hornbeams and bordered by tiny meadows that really does feel like an English rural archetype. To come upon the estate after this is like being teleported to a different continent. Beyond the iron railings, immense acres of grass and countless sheep sweep up to the hall in a grand statement of authority. Brown created a dramatic lake over a mile long and preserved a few of the pre-emparkment oaks, but they stand abruptly in shorn grass, like municipal statues. Heveningham Hall was bought in 1994 by the property magnate Jon Hunt, who commissioned the landscaper Kim Wilkie to complete Brown’s design. Wilkie simultaneously worked on what is called “the Wilderness Reserve” – a well-
meaning project, but a long way from the “rewilding” it claims to be. Echoing Brown at Croome, he drowned a wet alderwood under a lake. He planted 800,000 trees in regimented lines and hard-edged plantations, devoid of wild undergrowth. Seventy-two
thousand were ash, which Wilkie, fearing ash dieback, removed and replaced with oak and hornbeam – “an £850,000 mistake”, he judged. Indeed it was. Thirty-five miles to the south-west, next to the wild cherry and hazel wood known as Arger Fen, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust let a large arable field go feral ten years ago. It turned spontaneously into an ash wood and then, when many of the ash seedlings died, into a natural wood with ten different species of tree distributed across the site – all with no cost or planting contortions whatsoever.

Arger Fen is a good place to see a real ­English landscape. So, on a larger scale, are the Yorkshire Dales, where the awesome U-shaped valleys were sculpted by glaciers in the last Ice Age, and the New Forest, whose elvish woods were designated “Ancient and Ornamental” in 1877 without having had even the merest touch by a designer. 

Richard Mabey’s “The Cabaret of Plants” is published by Profile Books

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue

GETTY
Show Hide image

Marching against climate change in the age of Donald Trump

The People’s Climate Movement is as much about politics as science. That's its strength.

Saying goodbye is never easy. But the present generation are facing an awful lot of farewells: to the melting arctic, the dying Barrier Reef, and the general resilience of ecosystems around the world. As Margaret Atwood described it in her essay of the same name: “It’s not climate change, it’s everything change”.

The problem with “everything-change” is that it can be overwhelming. How do you even decide where to start?

The People’s Climate Movement want to begin by making visible the extent of concern out there. This weekend, a coalition of organisations have planned a protest march on the American capital. Between 50,000 -100,000 people are expected to attend, including eco-celebrities Leonardo Di Caprio, Al Gore and Richard Branson.

In London, a group called Campaign Against Climate Change, are co-ordinating a UK-based solidarity event. Protestors will meet at 11.30am in Old Palace yard opposite Parliament, then move to Westminster Bridge, where they will spell out a message to Theresa May: “Trump and May: Climate Disaster”.

For UK campaigners, this is a vital opportunity to raise awareness of the many ways in which action on climate change is under threat. Claire James from CACC outlines the sense of frustration and injustice that many feel with regard to recent government policy: “There have been 12,000 jobs lost last year in the solar industry alone and installation numbers have plummeted. Meanwhile fracking, hugely unpopular, is given determined backing.”

Ahead of the June election, campaigners are using the event to call for specific, cross-party commitments. One, fast-tracking the UK’s delayed Climate Change Plan. Two, ruling out new trade deals that compromise environmental, worker or consumer rights. And three, implementing a fair deal for UK solar and wind industry. “Our action on Saturday is about saying to the government – and to anyone who wants to form the next government – do your policies measure up?” says James.

These concrete political aims are an important way in which the movement differs from last weekend’s March For Science. That protest, inspired by the popularity of the Women’s March earlier this year, kept its message intentionally wide. As one of the London event’s organisers told DeSmog, it placed its emphasis on a generalised “celebration of science”. But this lack of specificity drew criticism from some quarters – for presenting a confusing message about politics' relationship to science.

Generalisation can also risk putting people off joining marches at all. Over the last few months, numerous friends have said they feel uncomfortable joining protests where they’re not sure that the person marching next to them is doing so for the same reasons. They’d feel much happier signing a petition, with a more specific and limited aim, they tell me.

This weekend’s climate marches risk drawing some of the same concerns. “Climate-change has become a synecdoche, a surrogate, for many causes in today’s world – social justice, the protection of nature, the rights of future generations, the defence of science,” says Professor Mike Hulme from King's College London. “Marches such as this give political voice to anti-establishment protest, but they don’t stop the climate changing.”

In addition, not all who want to see climate change prioritised by governments may agree over the exact course of action – with outright opposition to fracking, for instance, or to a third runway at Heathrow.

But this weekend’s movement also appears to have taken these lessons on board. First, they are putting their political aims up front. According the US event’s website, whereas the March for Science strove to be non-political, this movement “believes strongly in the need to call out the politicians.”

The link to the Paris Climate Treaty is helpful in this respect. The People’s Climate Movement traces its birth back to September 21 2014, the eve of the UN climate summit, when 400,000 people marched through New York demanding action on the climate crisis. This gives the movement a clear piece of legislation to both celebrate and defend.

And the London-based event is also attempting to re-think and expand what street-protests can achieve. “We’re doing a smaller action rather than a big march,” explains Claire James, “but we’re trying to have a real focus with the speakers on ‘what next’”. After the protest in Westminster, attendees are invited to join an afternoon of free food, activities and music, hosted by the food waste campaign Feedback. Here there will be even further opportunity to learn about the many ways – from divestment campaigns to local renewable energy groups – in which people can help press for change.

In this respect, public action against the climate crisis promises not to end when the walking does. And while protests won't stop climate change in themselves, joining a march can be a powerful reminder that we are not in this crisis alone.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496